ratification of the Constitution
If you were an Anti-Federalist would you have compromised and passed the Constitution against your beliefs? Outline your beliefs about the intent of the Constitution and then why you would or would not have supported ratification of it. Remember it is about demonstrating all your activities and what you learned about the Constitution and its supporters.
The President can't just veto anything he wants, though. There's a whole long process to it. If the President doesn't approve of a law, he will return the law unsigned to Congress. Then, the President has to explain himself and support his opinions. That in itself is a veto. After the veto, Congress can override the President's veto by a two thirds majority from both houses, therefore eliminating the President's capablity to veto anything he wants.
But this also gives the prsident alot of power, seeing that he ahs the power to make congress vote again. It also means that sometimes, if a republican law is passed by congress, even though congress might be even, when the president vetoes it, it must cahnge some peole's mind, thus allowing a chance at a failure. I think that we should give the president to put forth his opion, and maybe even vote, but not have the power to have everyone redo something again.
We should keep it the way it is, but I don't agree that we are just going to "'forget it and write our own." Our country's Constitution will never be forgotten, and the possibilites of us "writing our own" is highly impossible. I do support your opinion with keeping the Constitiution in the state that it is currently in as of today though.
Our new government was then developed and split into three branches known as the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. The executive branch is the branch that is responsible for carrying out new laws or executing them. The legislative branch is the branch that is responsible for making up the laws. The judicial branch is the branch that is responsible for interpreting the Constitution and reviewing laws.
Anti-fedralists didnt want to pass it becasue they thought it would give more power to the central government, and it wuld be like a king. But, i thought that they were wrong, we do have one person in main power, but he can't do anything he wants, he needs to have alot of others agree with him.
Judicial branch-hundreds of members/punishments/ supreme court state and federal
Amendments –a change in the constitution- documents that can be changed
Articles- 7 of them following preamble- part of a paper- section of document
Executive Branch- President, carry out the laws, state and federal
Preamble-before the articles-introduction-setting general principles
Legislative Branch- house of representatives and the Senate-law making
Bill of Rights-citizens rights-federal-constitution first ten amendments-
Constitution and its Parts
B. Article 1-Legislative Branch/make laws
C. Article 2- The Executive Branch/enforces the laws
D. Article 3-Judicial Branch/Interprets the laws
E. Article 4- The States/Federalism
F. Articles 5-7-Amendments,Depts and Ratifications
G. Amendments-1-10 (Bill of Rights)
H. Rest of Amendments 11-37
When the Constitution was written, there was a lot of argument. I do not think that these were in vain. The Constitution was proposing a lot and there were good points on both sides. I think that the Constitution that resulted was perfect. The state gets power, the nation gets power, it was and is the perfect compromise. The Bill of Rights was very necessary and the amendments allow the Constitution to be flexible and changeable.
Passing the Constitution was very ify. Anti-Federalists weren't sure that it would include the People's rights. They thought that the Federalists were just trying to get a Federal government ad leave no power to the individual states. The Anti-Feds wanted a Bill of Rights along with the Constitution, but the Federalists thought that the Constitution would limit the government enough. They wanted the Bill of Rights, but later on. They did compromise and added on the Bill of Rights later.
The Supreme Law of our country was adopted on September 17th, 1787. That law is known as the United States Constitution. Our Constitution establishes the laws, separates powers with the three branches of government. The Constitution is the framework of laws, principles, functions, and powers in the United States. Our country's Constitution is made up of three parts known as the Preamble, articles, and amendments. It is a document that states our freedoms and lays down laws that are beneficial to our rights as citizens that belong to the United States of America.
The Separation of Powers section of our Constitution played a major role in our country’s history and background. The Separation of Powers was devised by the writers of the Constitution to ensure that any branch of the government could be overruling and become more powerful than another branch. The separation of powers provides a system of shared power that is known as checks and balances.
The Bill of Rights is known as the first ten parts of our Constitution. These rights are stating and protecting our natural rights, liberties, and properties. Many anti-federalists worried that our national government was a threat to a citizen’s rights and that our federal court system would be objected/turned down. They did not want to ratify our country's Constitution without a Bill of Rights. But on the other hand, Federalists wanted to ratify the Constitution and add the Bill of Rights later. The Bill of Rights contains a preamble, amendments, and articles. Our rights could not be stated without this section being an important part of the Constitution.
The Constitution's purpose was to unite the states and create a federal government that makes all the decisions. If the states wanted to pass a law, then the federal government should have the say of passing it.
The disadvantage of that is that some states today have more debt to pay than others. That is when the states should have more power, because it would be unfair to citizens to pay more taxes than others, because they are not in much debt as other citizens.
It is a disadvantage to us personally as citizens, because the different classes of people have different tax amounts to pay which has resulted in major politcal debates and arguments. I believe that all citizens should have to pay equal tax, and not have the different classes pay a different amount of taxes due to the level of 'class' they are classified at.
I would have passed the Constitution because it helps make our country fair and it gives equal rights to the people and helps keep a strong, powerful government. The federal and state governments have to balance the power in the governments so that one person or branch doesn't take too much power. States also have to use government branches to make sure the laws and ideas they pass are constitutional.
From an anti federalists point of veiw- the constitution gave to much power to the national government at the expence of the state government.
From a fedralists point of veiw-the separation of powers into three independent branches protected the rights of the people. each branch represents a diffrent aspect of the people, and because all three branches are equal, no one group can assume control over another.
The constitution does not only help keep our government strong and equal, it helps decide what laws should be passed in a good way. Without the constitution, the country would not have strong military forces and we would be a weak government and the people of our country wouldn't be treated how they are.
Not all Americans believed that they should ratify the Constitution. According to Federalists, they wanted to pass and ratify the Constitution in order to make a federal government. They believed that they should have a Bill of Rights, but not riight away. Thet wanted to start a federal government and see if they need the Bill of Rights. They feared that if they passed the Bill of Rights, that the states would go against each state. They wanted the country to come together to become a nation.
According to Anti - Federalists, they wanted ratify the Constitution, if and only if, they have a Bill of Rights to go along with it. They didn't the country to be ruled by the federal government. They wanted the states to have just as much power as the federal government. They think that states should be able to make their own rules, and have their own standards. they also wanted the citizens to have a say in everything they do.
If I was an anti-Federalist, I think I would have passed the Constitution, but I would have really pushed for the Bill of Rights to be included within it. The Bill of Rights may not have ever been created if it wasn't for the anti-Federalists. I think the Constitution did a decent job of seperating the powers from Federal to State level, a very anti-Federalist idea.
Federalists and Anti-Federalists are pretty much the exact opposite. Federalists supported a strong, federal, or national government, and Anti-Federalists believed that each state should have a sovereign, independent government. Federalists also supported a strong national government to protect the states, but anti- federalists feared that a strong national government might not respect citizens' rights or people's liberties.
The constitution gives us the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and also the freedom to petition. This allows the citizens to share their voice and form a stronger government run by the people. We are allowed to voice our opinions, follow what ever religion we want, and sign petitions to voice our beliefs for the good of the country
Judical branches i think is the least important to government, they mosty deal with court cases. I think that the most important one is the legislative branch, because it passes laws and has the biggest idea of a democracy. I think that the executive branch is also very important, because they make the laws which found our country. This idea of three branches of government is more of a anti fedralist idea.
I believe that we do not need to have a District of Columbia because it has no purpose except to have the buildings of the government. Instead, I believe that we could just have these buildings in a certain city instead of making a big deal out of one city. This is an Anti –Federalist idea.
The stat governments have powers to create schools, regulate marriages, conduct elections,Regulate business in the state, estalish local governments, Assume other powewrs not given to the national goveernment. These are called reserved powers.
The federal goverment has the power to maitain army and navy, declare war, coin money, regulate trade between states and foreign countries, and make all laws for carrying out delagated powers. These are called delagated powers. The feralist government and state governments also share some powers. These powers areconcurrent powers.
I belive that most of our society is a fedralist type of peopl because most of us like s trong central government. I fwe wanted more power to the states, we wouldn't have had a majority of us say we want a constitution in the first place. I think that our society has bothe anti fedralists and fedralists thought becasue the presidential poll is extremely close, and both presidents have anti and fedralistis idea, which leads me to think that most of our country is like this.
Views of the federalists and anti-federalists varied greatly in many ways. Anti-federalists disagreed with ratifying the Constitution for multiple reasons. They would continually argue that the Constitution gave too much power to our national government at the expense of the state government. They argued that the national government could have an army during peacetime. They greatly feared that a strong executive branch would in future times leave to monarchy. The lack of the Bill of Rihts was the focus and main viewpoint the Anti-Federalists against ratification.
The Federalists however, believed differently than the Anti-Federalists.The Federalists would have argued that the Constitution and state governments were enough to protect a citizen's freedom and display their rights in this country; so therefore there was no need to have the Bill of Rights. The Federalists were also in favor of the Constitution, while the Anti-Federalists opposed. The Federalists also maintained a strong central govenment and a strong national bank.
The Colonists should ratify the Constitution, and should keep all the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch equal. By doing this, all the branches have an equal amount of power, so that no branch overrules another. Giving states more power, causes them to go against each othere during global situations, such as war.
The constitution is a big part of our history, I believe it is necessary for us to have a constitution; the world needs restrictions. But it was also necessary for us to want a Bill of Rights along with the constitution. Along with restrictions and limitations, we need freedoms.
I believe that the Constitution should remain the same. The Constitution is what gives us our basic rights and provides us witht the freedom we maintain today as citizens of the United States. It is an effecient way of keeping our nation's government in check. The Constitution keeps everything in equal porportion, meaning that the government will always remain equal and one part could never overtake another part; acting as a wall that prevents our country's government to expand.
The consitution should be kept because I believe its even. The president can't just do whatever he wants because congress has to agree too. I believe that the constitution should also be passed because I believe the government is divided evenly. The government is divided into three parts the legislative branch where the president signs a bill, it becomes a law but Congress have the final say. (It good Congress has the final say because the president should not have all the power.) The second branch is Congress which is made up of hundreds of people. The third branch is the judicial branch that is the made up of the Supreme Court.
The federalists and the anti-federalists are very opposite with their opinions for the ratification of the constitution. The anti-federalists wanted the bill of rights ratified right away with the constitution. The federalists agreed to propose a bill of rights but after the constitution was ratified. The federalists also believed that the bill of rights having the rights of citizens was unnecessary because the constitution already limited the government's powers. I agree with the anti-federalists because i think that the they needed that bill of rights ratified rights away to build more laws and rules to follow and also to help support a strong state to protect people's liberties.
Even though the constitution has no bill of rights attached, it still gives rights to citizens. The main reason the constitution should be ratified is that the articles of the federation aren't strong enough to be the guidelines to our country. It would not be abe to have stood for the two hundred plus years that the constitution has.
In the constitution, Its states all the 27 amendments and preamble and the three branches of government legislative- article 1, executive- article 2, and the judicial- article 3. The bill of rights is also important of the constition because it states all the rights of a citizen.
federalists- argued that individual states might not be able to protect themselves from foreign nations. supporters of the constitution because they supported a strong federal, or national, government.
anti-federalists- feared that a strong central government would endanger the peoples liberties. They are opponents of the constitution.
I believe we sho'uld keep kthe constitution because we need this to keep us balanced and this gives us equal rights and power.
Without the Constitution, where would we stand as a nation? We would be a chaotic country... no rights, no laws, no freedoms. If our nation were to ratify the Constitution, the things we would take for granted in everyday life could be limited and/or taken from our possession, leaving us with an unstable government and future lifestyle.
If I was an anti federalist I would have passed the Constitution because it helps make America fair and it gives equal rights to everyone and keep a strong government. The fed. and state governments have to balance the power between them so that one person or branch doesn't have too much power.
If I was an Anti-federalist I would have passed the Constitution because it helps make America fair and it gives equal rights to everyone and keep a strong government. The Federal and state governments have to balance the power between them so that one person or branch doesn't have too much power.
This is what I find to be a very interesting perspective that I came up with my own. Instead of letting a supreme court that ultimately makes the final decision on laws that affect the whole country, why not give that power to the people? After all it is obvious that we often vote people into office without knowing their belief on everything! I say keep everything in place but at the end of the process create a more direct democracy for the final say or option.
I only bring this up because take Obamacare for an example... Nobody knew he was going to implement such a law when he ran in 2008 and nobody voted for him based on that position. He deceived everybody and then passed it when he had the power to as president. Over 60% of the country wants it repealed but it's law of the land because we relied on politicians and corrupt judges to preserve our rights. If we granted ourselves the power to have the final say if a law passes or not based on a populous vote a law like that would have never passed!